VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LIMITED,VAPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , VALSAD

In the result, various grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Vapi Green Enviro Limited, Pr.C.I.T., Valsad. 135, 1St Floor, Via House, G.I.D.C. 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Vs. Char Rasta, Vapi, Gujarat, Arcade, Shanti Nagar, India-396195. Tithal Road, Pan: Aaacv 8289 P Valsad-396001. Appellant Respondednt

Exemption) has erred in law and on the facts of the case, by concluding that the Appellant has failed to disclose income in respect of grant of Rs. 1,22,37,948/- though in fact, the Appellant has clearly shown that the same represents the amount of deferred grant transferred to Profit and Loss Account to meet depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LTD., , VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is set aside and disposed of for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.152 & 153/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Ays: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vapi Circle, Vs. M/S. Vapi Green Enviro Ltd., 135, 1St Floor, Via House, Gidc, Vapi. Char Rasta, Vapi – 396195. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacv8289P Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri Aarti Shah, Ar 19/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023

exempted. The Assessing Officer denied the mutuality and assessed the treatment charges as ‘business income’ and also disallowed the claim of depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI vs. M/S VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LTD., , VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is set aside and disposed of for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.152 & 153/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Ays: (2017-18 & 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vapi Circle, Vs. M/S. Vapi Green Enviro Ltd., 135, 1St Floor, Via House, Gidc, Vapi. Char Rasta, Vapi – 396195. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacv8289P Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri Aarti Shah, Ar 19/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023

exempted. The Assessing Officer denied the mutuality and assessed the treatment charges as ‘business income’ and also disallowed the claim of depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LTD., , VAPI

In the result, ground No.3 & 4 raised by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

exempted. The Assessing Officer denied the mutuality and assessed the treatment charges as ‘business income’ and also disallowed the claim of depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI vs. M/S. VAPI GREEN ENVIRO LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VAPI WASTE & MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD.), VAPI

In the result, ground No.3 & 4 raised by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

exempted. The Assessing Officer denied the mutuality and assessed the treatment charges as ‘business income’ and also disallowed the claim of depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXAMPTION) WARD, SURAT vs. SHREE SAIBABA SATSANG MANDAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Exemption) v. Framjee Cawasjee Institute [1993] 109 CTR 463. In that case, the facts were as follows: The assessee was the Trust. It derived its income from depreciable

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT vs. M/S.BALAR NAVADIY MFG.CO.,, SURAT

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.349/Srt/2017 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward- M/S Balar Navadiy Mfg. 3(3)(1), Room No.418, 4Th Co., Balar Building, Opp. Vs Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Panchratna Tower, Lambe Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Hanuman Road, Surat-395006 Pan : Aaffb 3054 J अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

depreciation after year which proved plant and machinery was either used by assessee or by other persons. The assessee has not satisfied that plant and machinery in the unit to claim exemption

SAMIR YOGENDRABHAI PARIKH,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

depreciation has been shown at Rs. 16,34,335/- while in the other, the amount of deprecation is claimed at Rs. 14,83,538/-. The Assessing Officer has not examined the difference between such tables. The Assessing Officer also made a remark regarding cash flow system of accounts and exempt

KRISTINA NATHABHAI KRICHCHAN,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.349/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) Kristina Nathabhai Krichchan, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(3), 2/4, Zankhana Apartment, Surat. 21 Narmad Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat – 395001. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Dwipk2888D Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 10/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

depreciation on the property. In this view of the matter, we have no doubt in our mind that the learned Tribunal went wrong in holding that for the purpose of applicability of section 54, registration of document is imperative. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, i.e., the assessee is entitled to exemption

MASJID-E-MOAZZAN & MAZAR-E-SAIFEE,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.451/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Masjid-E-Moazzan & Mazar-E- Assistant Commissioner Saifee, Of Income Tax, 3/873, Devdi Mubarak, Circle-2, Surat Zampa Bazar, Surat 395002 Pan:Aatmb 8182 R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation was not allowed. With regard accumulation under section 11(1) (a), the CIT (A) observed that it would be allowed if there is residual income after application of income. Masjid-E-Moazzan & Mazar-E-Saifee/I.T.A.No. 451/AHD/2015 A.Y. 11-12 Page 4 of 6 7. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned counsel

SHRI GORDHANBHAI R. ASODARIA,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, SURAT

In the result, the ground No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Gordhanbhai R. Asodaria, A.C.I.T., 8, Raghuvir Bunglow, City Light Road, Central Circle-3, Vs. Parle Point, Surat-395007. Surat. Pan No. Abapa 6910 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

exempt income of Rs. 27,34,928/- and agriculture income of Rs. 3,21,544/-. The assessee claimed the above interest expenditure which is not part of total income. The assessee was issued show cause notice on 17/11/2019. The Assessing Officer recorded that no reply was filed by assessee. The Assessing Officer disallowed various expenses aggregating

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. JIVRAJ TEA COMPANY,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.2343/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Jivraj Tea Company, Of Income Tax, 5/258-259, Jivraj Chambers, Circle – 2(3), Surat. Ruwala Tekra, Bhagal, Surat. [Pan: Aacfj 2236 R] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Prasoon Kabra – Cit-Dr

exempt u/s. 80IA of the Act on the strength report in the Form-10CCB. The ld. DR further submitted that the AO rightly observed that as per s. 80IA(5) of the Act, the income or loss of the windmill has to be worked out on “standalone basis” and as if it is the only source of income and that

S J P CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1 to 3 of the appeal are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.430/Srt/2023 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) S J P Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of E-3300, Radhakrishna Textile Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2) Vs Market, Ring Road, Surat- Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, 395002 Income Tax Colony, Pan No. Aajcs 4313 C Athwa, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

depreciation of Rs.3,00,57,076/- as against correct figure of Rs.2,97,35,735/-. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in making disallowance of interest expense of Rs.2,38,08,019/- and capitalizing the same. a) By wrongly holding that the windmill was not put to use even

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. S D MATERIAL HANDLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.499/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S S D Material Handlers Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat Vs. 405-408, Shivalik Western, L.P. Room No.612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Savani Road, Adajan Adajan Bhavan, Near Majura Gate, Bo, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccd 3481B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

depreciation at the rate of 30%. The very same cranes are involved in the present Tax Appeal which were the subject matter of consideration in the Assessment Year 2007-08. However, according to the Revenue, it was a mistake committed by the Assessing Officer at the relevant point of time and such a mistake can always be corrected

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,, BHARUCH

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,65,04,000/-. Accordingly, it is held, that order of the AO in this regard is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of IT. Act, 1961. 7. In respect of other items viz. profit

M/S. GUJARAT CHEMICAL PORT TERMINAL CO.LTD.,,BHARUCH vs. THE CIT-I, BARODA

In the result, Cross Objection appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1501/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Terminal V The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vadodara. Company Ltd., S Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, . Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2998/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income V M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Tax, Circle-1(1), Baroda. S Terminal Company Ltd., . Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Cross Objection No.30/Ahd/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2998/Ahd/2014) "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Gujarat Chemical Port Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Terminal Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Po Lakhigam, Via Dahej, Baroda. Bharuch – 392 130. [Pan: Aaacg 6861 A] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,65,04,000/-. Accordingly, it is held, that order of the AO in this regard is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of IT. Act, 1961. 7. In respect of other items viz. profit

SHREE SAINATH SARVAJANIK SEWA MANDAL TRUST,UNA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.204/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Sewa Vs. The Ito, Exemption Ward, Mandal Trust, Surat. N.H. No.8, Near Ganesh Sisodra, Unn-396445, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafts7802P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short ‘Nfac), Delhi, In Appeal No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1036051308(1) Dated 30.09.2021, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Exemption Ward, Mandal Trust, Surat. N.H. No.8, Near Ganesh Sisodra, Unn-396445, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFTS7802P (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Revenue by: Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 12/05/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

M/S. BAYER VAPI PRIVATE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD.),VAPI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for A

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P. Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No’S.2886/Ahd/2010, 794/Ahd/2014 & 1769/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 बनाम M/S. Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. , Addl. Cit Range- ( Now Known As M/S. Bayer Vapi Vs. Vapi, Range Vapi Private Limited) 306/3,Phase-Ii Shivam Commercial Complex Gidc-1, Vapi Gujarat National Highway No 8 Vapi Pan: Aabcb 2100 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A. Gopalakrishnan Aiyer - Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri O. P. Singh Cit (D.R.) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 26.09.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: 1. The Above Captioned Three Appeals For The Assessment Year 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12 By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Dated 28.07.2010 & Dated 15.01.2014 Respectively Under The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short] On The Direction Of Drp By The Addl. Cit Range-Vapi Range Vapi (Herein After Referred As The Ao) & The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Dated 29.04.2016. Since The Common Issues Are Involved In These Appeals Therefore, These Were Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed As Under: It(Tp)A No.2886/Ahd/2010/A.Y. 2006-07/ By The Assessee: 2. Ground Nos.1 Is General In Nature & Do Not Require Adjudication.

exempted from tax. The assessee company has filed unit wise profit and loss account for the year from which it is noticed that the commission expenses which could not be directly identify with any of the unit for the assessee company was allocated on the basis of certain numbers 26 Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd. Now Bayer Vapi